Thai PM heads to APEC amid worries over post-coup relations
Posted: 14 November 2006 1652 hrs
HANOI – Thailand’s post-coup premier flies in to Hanoi for his
first major summit amid questions over how the regime will be received
by Asia-Pacific leaders after failing to lift martial law.
Surayud Chulanont, installed after the coup which ousted Thaksin
Shinawatra nearly two months ago, arrives here Friday and, as protocol
would have it, is scheduled to sit alongside US President George W.
But despite pledges last week that the ruling military would lift
martial law before Surayud meets other leaders here, the subject did
not even arise at Tuesday’s cabinet meeting in Bangkok.
“There was no discussion about martial law in the cabinet meeting,” Surayud said.
It was “not an urgent matter,” he insisted, adding that the final
decision lay with the ruling military but giving no indication when
that would happen.
Nevertheless, he brushed aside suggestions that it would affect
Thailand’s diplomatic standing at the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation
(APEC) summit in Hanoi this weekend.
“This issue will not be raised at the meeting,” he told reporters.
Thailand’s delegation also insists it will be business as usual with topics including world trade, security and North Korea.
“The present government is a legitimate government, they are
legitimate to negotiate anything,” Thai foreign ministry spokesman
Kitti Vasinonh told AFP.
However, world leaders were not impressed with the sight of tanks
on the streets of Bangkok and the subsequent crackdown on civil
liberties, including martial law, a ban on public gatherings and
restrictions on the media.
Highly sensitive to international criticism, the Thai government
last week announced plans to lift martial law to “make our allies more
Even if it does happen soon, it may not be enough to satisfy
countries such as the United States, a key ally which has called for
elections promised for late next year to be brought forward.
Washington and Tokyo, another close ally, have also made it clear
that they do not plan to negotiate with an unelected government and
have suspended free trade agreement talks with the kingdom.
“The US plans no resumption until reestablishment of democratic
government in Thailand,” a spokesman for the Office of the US Trade
Analysts had warned that Bush may be reluctant to meet a military-installed leader like Surayud, a former army chief.
“It is possible that the country which adores democracy will not be
happy with a Thai government which came from a coup,” Thai political
scientist Prayad Hongthongkam told AFP.
But he said the APEC leaders would probably be more concerned with pushing their own agendas than chastising other nations.
“The benefit for their economy, for their countries, will be more important,” he said.
In any case, Bush would have struggled to avoid Surayud. Under the
seating arrangement based on alphabetical order of the 21 APEC members,
the two will sit next to each other at the leaders’ retreat.
They will also stand side-by-side during the official photocall.
Bush and Surayud will also likely talk at a planned meeting between
the US president and leaders of the Association of Southeast Asian
Nations (ASEAN) on the sidelines of the summit.
Surayud will join fellow ASEAN leaders from Vietnam, Malaysia,
Singapore, the Philippines, Indonesia and Brunei in the meeting, at
which military-ruled Myanmar is set to be discussed.
Washington is pushing for a UN resolution condemning Myanmar over human
rights abuses and the slow pace of democratic reform, while ASEAN
countries have advocated a less confrontational approach.
It is a particularly sensitive issue for Thailand because of the
comparison between neighbouring Myanmar and its own army-installed
“We, the Thailand and Burmese governments, are almost in the same
shoes, so we have to be very careful on how to solve this problem,”
powered by performancing firefox
|What the Thai coup was really about||
|06 November 2006|
| Who gets the kingdom’s sceptre when Bhumibol leaves the stage?
It’s beginning to sink in now in Bangkok that the September 19 military coup which ousted Thaksin Shinawatra just a few months before elections was not really about corruption or democracy or rule of law. Nor was it, as some have claimed, a “different” (somehow more virtuous) coup.
As with US President George W. Bush and the Iraq invasion, slowly the justifications for the putsch are shedding away, showing that the military’s righteous claims of a determination to eliminate corruption and right the constitution are empty: when you have those motivations, you have ideas on how you will go about it.
Even those supposedly shrewd mass media opinion leaders who cheered any action to rid the nation of Thaksin – going so far as to generously print by the score baseless rumors – are now finding fault in their white knights.
The coup was about Thaksin’s ambition and misrule, certainly, but what really got General Sonthi Boonyaratklin and his cohorts to move was the issue of succession to the throne. There was a clear meeting of minds between the crown and the military, through King Bhumibol Adulyadej’s number one aide Prem Tinsulanonda, that they did not want Thaksin in a position to exert influence on the passing of the Chakri Dynasty mantle to Crown Prince Vajiralongkorn.
Theoretically the mechanism for the handover when King Bhumibol, nearly 79, passes away, is clear and simple. By a long tradition of primogeniture, by the 1924 Palace Law of Succession and by the pattern established in the pile of constitutions crafted, eliminated in army coups and crafted again over six decades, the crown should go in the first place to a son of the king – and Prince Vajiralongkorn is his only son.
In the absence of a son — and ‘absence’ can give way to multiple interpretations — it can go to a daughter of the king. Recent constitutions have also allowed that the king can both make his own decision whatever the law, and he can also unilaterally change the 1924 law, with the approval of the privy council. (The post-coup interim constitution doesn’t address succession, leaving it, ironically, to “constitutional practice”.)
But the Thai monarchy is no different from other monarchies in history: in human hands in a secretive palace and government, all these principles give way to power politics.
In fact, there will be no way of knowing whether the privy council does act in this way or makes its own decisions. The legislature will have to sign off on it though, so whatever decisions is made must be firm, convincing and acceptable.
The second reality of succession is that the military has to agree. As they showed again in September, for the 11th time in 60 years, they can decide who runs the country. And so who controls the military can have a big impact on succession.
The third reality is that Prince Vajiralongkorn is widely disliked and feared, while his sister is very popular. That might not matter, since royal sovereigns are not elected. But in the 1980s Princess Sirindhorn was given tenure as a history lecturer in the Chulachomklao Military Academy, the training ground for Thailand’s brass, and by now an entire generation of officers has passed through her classes. The bonding that has taken place is well known.
By comparison, the prince, himself a military officer by substantial training, has not developed such relationships. Very possibly, the Thai military leadership is biased in favor of the princess, though with significant elements who for various reasons ally themselves with the prince.
These factors in succession began to come into focus when Thaksin began spending money in the 1990s on the royal family, to the point, as he allegedly boasted in private, that he had at least some of them in his pocket. But they became strikingly clear to the palace and its allies when Thaksin began putting his own men in the top command positions of the military. Amid all the political infighting last year and early this year, the key indicators of what was going on were Thaksin’s fight with coup leader General Sonthi on staffing key positions, a battle Thaksin lost – ensuring the coup was successful.
The palace has long used its own proxy generals to maintain sway on the military, and that has been the key role of Privy Council head, General Prem Tinsulanonda, since he was King Bhumibol’s hand-picked prime minister in 1980. His first duty on the privy council is to keep the military locked in step with the palace. To that end Prem has recruited a number of his own loyal followers from the military and civilian bureaucracies to back him up on the council. Unsurprisingly, one, General Surayuth Chulanont, was made prime minister after the coup.
With a Thaksin-cleansing operation still going on in the military and bureaucracy, the effect is to make sure the army and the political leadership are lined up behind the privy council and do not pose a threat to whatever Prem and his fellow king’s councilors do when King Bhumibol passes.
That doesn’t guarantee everything, given the possible divisions between pro-prince and pro-princess factions, or even the potential for a “monarchist” uprising like that of the past year to make demands on the process. That means that it is ultimately up to Princess Sirindhorn to send the right signals if tensions arise at any level.
All that makes this coup no different from nine of the 11 successful putsches of Bhumibol’s reign. Aside from the 1951 and 1977 coups – they were against royal power – these coups have always been about ensuring the solidarity and strength of the royal-military alliance in the face of potential challenges, be they pro-democracy students, communist insurgency, or a headstrong elected prime minister.
In each as, as this time around, the coup leaders showed no real agenda for sorting out national economic or social problems, no sense of what they wanted the constitution to achieve, no guidance for Thai society going into the future. But in the absence of any such agenda, they point directly to what it was all about.
Filed under: ไม่มีหมวดหมู่